Madam Clerk, like take the roll call, please.

David Carlin.

Lynn Underwood Segley.

Here.

Charlie Holder.

Here.

Side camps of Oravong.

Here.

Jean Marie Napolitano.

Here.

Ellen Pinnock.

Here.

Stephanie Smith.

Here.

There is a quorum present, Mr.

Chair.

Please stand for Pledge of Algiance.

Pledge of the Quark.

All right.

Right before we uh we get into uh everything, I just want to send out a thank you to uh the city staff, uh Newport PD, Newport Fire Department, uh for the work they did over the snowstorm.

Hope everyone had a hope everyone was safe.

Um and uh made it through okay, but I just want to make sure we uh we thank the city staff for the work that they've done in a short period of time for a lot of snow um over the over the weekend.

So thank you for that.

Um Mr.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we move um citizens form.

Okay, fine.

Uh anyone sign up for citizens form, madam clerk.

No, they have not.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Um make a motion that we move the resolution number 16 to just after the consent calendar before licenses and permits.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin, checking in.

Can we move item G on the consent calendar, please?

To regular discussion.

Yes.

Uh and then uh got his attendance for Council Crowen.

Oh, I'm here, Laura.

How are you doing?

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety with the exceptions of D and G.

Second.

Motion is second.

Any discussion?

Those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Motion to uh receive a communication from the energy and environment commission.

Uh this is recommending that the council support a moratorium on new natural gas connections.

This is a receive from the commission.

All right, we have uh motion and second.

Um the reason you know we're asking uh to talk about this is I would uh like to make a motion that we vote to uh deny uh receiving this uh recommendation.

Second I we have motion and second and discussion on that.

Mr.

Chair, Council Smythe.

Um, I have a lot of concerns about us turning away any communication from any of our commissions.

Um our commission's work very hard.

It's a volunteer position.

We have a lot of subject matter experts.

We did do a joint workshop with the energy and environment commission and asked them at the workshop to please provide their advisory on next steps.

Um it's just communication.

We are just accepting a letter from them.

We do not have to move forward with their recommendation.

Um, but I think it just sets a bad precedent for our commissions to turn around and say we are charging you with doing the research, holding multiple meetings, and providing us with a report or a letter of advisory, and then turning around and saying to them that we're not going to allow that kind of stuff going forward based upon a hot topic that um that we either may not like or we might receive recommendations from the community that they're not in favor of it.

I just think it sets a bad precedent.

So I am uh I'm not gonna vote to reject something that they worked hard on to submit to us.

Sure.

Understand just my thoughts.

Any other discussion?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Crowin.

Thank you.

Uh let there be no question about it that I do not favor a moratorium on new gas hookups.

Ditto.

Council Smythe.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Pennett.

Um I also I also agree with um Councillor Smythe because we've just come through a whole bunch of interviews um for different boards and commissions, and I think if we like publicly um refuse a communication from them, we're likely going to start seeing less people interested um in the work that we're doing in the city, and we really want to bring more people in.

So I am in favor of hearing what it is that they have to say because they've worked really hard.

All right.

Um, my only reasoning for not accepting this is you know, it's basically just the topic at hand.

Um I understand the work that uh the commission has done on this, and uh you I respect it for sure.

We did the workshop.

No, and I and I and I said I did the we did the workshop.

We received any information and um to my perspective, there wasn't anything brought in front of us that would warrant any uh further action on our part to even um even recommend because our assets to recommend recommend a moratorium on new gas hookups.

And I don't think we're we have seen anything, any information that would want us or guide us or want to lead us to that direction, nor do I want to give our staff and administration you know more work than than they have already or that needs to be done.

And no, and so unless the way I see it, the less unless we get really hard and true facts about why we should really look into this at this time.

I just don't think it's something that we should be uh putting front and center.

Mr.

Chair, Council Smith.

I believe there are some members of the Energy and Environment Commission that are here that may be able to speak to that.

Uh yeah, they were more than like more than welcome for sure.

Thank you.

Uh Emily Conklin, Seven Gwynn Court in Newport, Rhode Island.

I'm the vice chair of the Energy Environment Commission.

Thank you for um inviting me up here, Councillor Smythe, and um who's our liaison.

Um I understand what is being said.

Um I would just like to read what we are actually uh recommending, which is um based on four open meetings of the Energy and Environment Commission and the workshop, which was previously mentioned.

Uh we wrote a letter to um the city council, which is the content we are discussing, and in that letter, a draft proposed letter to the um energy facilities sighting board.

Um our recommendation we stated as such.

Based on these conversations, the information shared at the workshop and our own research.

The commission recommends the council communicate to the energy facility sighting board, the EFSB, Rhode Island Energy, and other necessary state agencies that the city of Newport is in favor of exploring non-infrastructure energy solutions for Quidnick Island, including a moratorium on new natural gas connections.

Um this communication requires you to do nothing.

You absolutely do not have to send this to the EFSB.

The reason we discussed this in the first place was because the EFSB asked for input from the municipalities of the island.

Um we took that very seriously, and that's why we came to this.

You are fully welcome to disagree with our recommendation, and you absolutely do not have to do anything after today.

But I agree with counselor Smith that it's very frustrating to spend over four months on something and put a lot of work and time, volunteer time into something and communicate it to the council the way we are supposed to via communication in this way.

Um we have all of our meetings are open.

We have welcomed Chair Holder, we welcome uh counselor uh Smythe and anyone else who come, but this is the way we are asked to communicate to council, and so I would if you would like to do nothing with it afterwards.

That's your prerogative, but to refuse our communication, I think is confusing at best.

Thank you.

Any other discussion, Council Sai.

I think my views are uh aligned a bit with Counselor Carlins here, where I'm gonna oppose anything that raises costs for newporters, specifically working middle class newporters.

And so I understand concerns that this may do that.

I don't see the logical pathway to supporting a moratorium that would help reduce the burden on middle class families, but we at least have to take on the responsibility of taking a look.

And I commend the Energy and Environment Commission for at least taking a look and raising the issue.

What is before us is one of our most basic ministerial duties, which is accepting a communication, just like we accept letters from residents complaining about things on any given day or any other number of items, and if we can't at this level be a basic forum for civil discussion, especially when we've actually requested that discussion occur, I don't really know what we're doing up here.

So I'm gonna vote in favor of receiving this with complete respect to my colleagues.

Um, because we've got to at least be able to do the basics of functioning as a government body right now, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the policy or the recommendation or the communication that's being received.

Um that being said, I think we can all probably all do math.

Uh and so I'd like to move the question.

Second um Mr.

Chair, uh I understand both sides of this.

I understand the hard work that's gone into it.

I also understand the I'm so sorry to be a stickler.

I really am.

There's a there's and I had said at the last meeting, I'm gonna try to be a nicer guy, but I don't think pointing out appropriate adherence to Robert's rules is not being a nice guy.

There's a motion on the table, which was seconded to call the question.

Debate ends, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay, all right.

Um all those in favor of receiving the communication, uh raise your right hand.

All is opposed ayes have it, but thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um motion a communication from Nicholas Armour, zoning officer, uh proposed zoning amendments pursuant to resolution number 2025 um 88.

Uh so motion to receive and refer to the planning board for a recommendation and order advertised for a public hearing February 25th, 2026.

February second.

Motion and second, any discussion, Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

Chairman, Madam Vice Chair.

I ask that this be pulled from the consent calendar from the consent agenda, uh, because I am aware that there are folks who would like to speak on the nature of uh the communication.

And uh certainly I do not want to impede uh on that right.

Um it is for or by way of background, a uh resolution that I sponsored some months ago, which was originally sponsored in 2024 by former counselor Mark O'Romley, and it has had a uh an interesting path to where we are today.

Uh but uh with um with that said, Mr.

Chairman, before I yield to you to invite those who might want to speak on this, uh I I want to give my my great thanks to uh uh first of all who the communication is from, Nick Garmer, uh from the zoning department.

I'm not sure if Nick is with us tonight, but uh he deserves thanks.

Uh obviously Patricia Reynolds, Trish Reynolds and the planning department, Director Crean, uh, who is here, who is always here, and her wonderful department.

Uh, but most of all, I want to uh extend my personal thanks to our city solicitor, Mr.

Bean, Chris Bean, for uh what was not an easy task here, and that is to take a resolution which was somewhat controversial, sarcasm noted, very controversial, uh, and turn it into something which is uh as democracy runs, perhaps acceptable to all sides, maybe not.

But Mr.

Bean did a tremendous amount of of work on this, and I thank him and his office for such.

And Mr.

Chairman, before I yield back to you, if Mr.

Bean wants to elaborate, great.

If not, I yield back to you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

The only thing I would say is that it's um it is down um on the docket to be received, ordered for advertising and referred to the planning board.

So if there are people who want to speak on it, that's up to the council, but there is gonna be a public hearing on this uh and a um leave and one of the meeting, but we're meeting in March February of February, and then there is it's heard it's an audit of only ordinance that will be heard again, and it's been the practice of this council to allow public comment at that stage too.

But um, if anyone has any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer it over the little bit, but I do also thank you, Council with the kind words, but I would give a lot of credit to Nick Armer and pressure balance on this.

They came up with uh product based on what I told them that the council was looking for.

So that said, uh any questions, let me know.

I do have so uh uh go ahead, Council Pennant.

Um thank you.

So be in I was just wondering if it is possible to receive like a plain language summary of how the amendments will affect um like each ward prior to the hearing.

Yeah, so the state to sum it up what what's been done is it affects two of the mostly two of the commercial districts, the general business and the water fund business.

And what it will do, it will now make guest houses, and we refer to uh short-term rentals, they're in the zoning ordinance, they're their guest houses.

And what it does is it it for these commercial properties now requires a um it will require passes that a uh a manager live on the premises full time in a residential dwelling, so there'll have to be permanent housing for someone, a year-round housing there.

So uh and now it requires it's no longer by right, it's by special use permit.

Um it also uh it cleans up or addresses the parking requirements.

There's been a great deal of concern about various that have been granted to parking for some of these um commercial these in the business uh commercial zones, and this now uh requires that um the property have the needed parking on site, and you can no longer seek a dimensional variance from those parking.

So you can leave if they're gonna switch the short-term rentals, guest houses, they need to have the parking on-site, not get a variance of dimensional variance.

They could get a use variance, but that's an incredibly difficult uh task to obtain.

So um the the other major thing that we've done here is that we were we've seen before if there is a stumble and what they've done with the requirement for a manager, they've put the management unit in a commercial ground floor space, and what this will do is no longer allow that.

So if there's commercial space from ground floor, especially down in our commercial districts, they streak the Broadway and along that area, they will have to keep that as a commercial use.

So it's going to keep this is going to keep like the nature of the virtual nature intact.

And uh draft the housing element that you guys were concerned about, and also the parking element then too concerned.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chairman, might I for just one moment.

While I concentrated on praise and thanks for our city officials, uh I failed to thank my colleague and friend, uh Counselor Kamsa Varban, who also worked very hard to navigate all sides of this, Councilor Kamza Borban has a lot more patience than I do and was able to help me work with uh folks who were not pleased with the original resolution.

Thank you, Sai.

Thank you.

Uh I know we have some people in the audience that that want to come up.

Um I just want to just want to let everyone know that one of the reasons that I wanted to pull this is just to make sure everyone knows this is not something that we're voting on tonight.

Um they won't be we won't be discussing this really until uh our second meeting in February on the 25th.

Um but I still want to uh welcome.

I know somebody back here wants to come up.

I just have a just come up to the uh podium, state your name and address, please, too.

Thank you.

Uh we're located in a few residents here in Newport.

I just want to know if this is going to grandfather those that are currently, or if they're exempt and or now what we have is going to be taken away.

We have financing with bank loans that are based on operating a certain way.

So it's being taken out.

I mean our debt structure and you know debt service coverage ratios are not going to fly.

They will call loads.

And so what do we do then?

It's it's the application of this would be the prospect and prospect of in nature.

Okay, so this would not go into the earliest it could go into effect would be the first meeting in March.

So those would apply to any conversion after that uh date.

Anything existing from the zoning move basic zone is re-positive and has vested sites.

Okay, so nothing will change for those who learned how it now.

Okay.

The language a little unclear in the way it was written and just didn't feel concrete that that was that's that's because it's a basic tenant of zoning below that's perspective.

And uh we don't normally include that language in just calls a little back to value question in the comments.

Great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, and like I said, as we go forward, there's gonna be plenty of discussion, and there could even be um one, two or fifty changes to how this ends up.

So Chuck Boldock, Dixon Street.

A lot of different things are happening in zoning world as well as Mr.

B and thank you for getting this moving forward.

But again, the perspective that you folks have already talked about is how does this apply with the overall parking?

The numbers that we see if if zoning gets a variance request for five different places, and you you wind up with 14 suddenly extra parking places on the street.

Does this in some way help to address the overall total of the new parking requirements that are being thrown out on the streets?

Okay, yes, sir.

How are you guys doing?

Uh my name is Casey Horton for Goodwin Street Unit One.

Uh, don't believe I'm going to be able to make the next public hearing, so I figured I'd just kind of give my my excerpt here now.

Um, first of all, thank you very much, city counselors, for allowing the public to comment here on this issue.

Um, I'm here to urge you, please do not support uh the proposed zoning amendments we're we're talking of.

Um a little bit of background about me.

I fell in love with the city as a kid where family would rent homes, summer vacations, uh holiday weekends, we'll break things like that.

Um I got engaged here, I'm getting married here in July.

So, like all of us in this room, we all have a special place for Newport in our heart.

Um, it was always my fiance and my dream to one day own a home here in Newport.

We always understood though that home ownership anywhere, but specifically here comes a real financial responsibility, and that if we're gonna make it work, property would need to probably generate some income.

Um during the times we're not there because of that, we spent years researching um in only the zones in Newport here where short-term rental was allowed by rights.

Um in early 2025, we closed on a four-bedroom home here that I mentioned previously uh in the waterfront business district.

Um coincidentally, we had actually stayed there for a week, about a decade prior.

Uh first thing we did was submit a proper transient guest facility or guest house permit.

Um after a long uh wait, however, we were we were unfortunately quite surprised to find out that although um we had just paid for a four-bedroom home that we could only rent two of the four bedrooms.

Um due to two primary issues, one being that renting all four bedrooms requires five on-site parking spaces.

We only have one space, which is consistent with similar homes in the neighborhood and other homes located steps away from Thames Street, like ours is.

Um, and second issue being that the overall uh duplex structure, which houses our four-bedroom unit and another four-bedroom unit, in the city's opinion, um constitutes as one building and therefore exceeds the five-bedroom maximum allowed per um per building for a guest house as a nation.

In my opinion, those two thresholds are just unfair and unattainable, given the characteristics of our rather dense neighborhood over on Goodwin Street, and especially for properties such as ours, which are you know is a townhouse style condominium that has always had four bedrooms since it was constructed and um has historically been rented out with four bedrooms.

So, in summary, you know, I guess thankfully though, we were we were somehow approved to rent for those two bedrooms, as I mentioned before, due to the in my opinion, convoluted parking credit concept that the proposed amendment actually plans to eliminate, thus potentially rendering the future status of my property, which is currently benefiting from the parking credit, potentially non-compliant or non-conforming.

I guess I'd just like to leave you with this.

Um my fiance and I saved money for a decade since we got out of college, and although I'm slightly embarrassed to admit we extended ourselves further than we probably could have afforded because we trusted that per the zoning code, it was our right in the waterfront business district to rent out the entirety of our four-bedroom home.

Unfortunately, that assumption was wrong, and although we're suffering because of it, we're doing our absolute best to avoid selling what we believe is our dream home that we just purchased in January of 2025.

So please, city counselors, do not make it even harder for us by supporting the proposed amendments today.

Thank you very much.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, sir.

Mr.

Horton, uh, thanks for being here.

Appreciate the communication back and forth.

Absolutely.

And for my colleagues, the communication is Mr.

Horton's question as to whether public comment would be acceptable.

You live uh full-time in Newport.

I do not.

You do not.

Thank you very much.

Um I also have one more question if it's allowed.

Sure, go ahead.

Um can we clarify what exactly conversion guest house houses mean?

I think um we we did.

I just wanted to make sure I understand it's just any is it existing guest houses that then potentially get sold and then stay guest house under a new owner, is that a conversion or is a conversion a residential dwelling unit that um gets turned into a guest house?

Yeah.

Mr.

Bean, yeah.

The uh zoning applies to the property, the use.

It is not tag along with the owner, it's not owner dependent.

So if you have an existing guest house use now, and just as the other gentleman asked, if you have whatever use you have now that you've been approved, and if you've been registering that with the city of Newport, and the zoning officer has given you the okay that it's a proper use, then you will have that use at that property.

Um, even if these ordinances pass the zoning office, uh the zoning ordinances are amended.

Now, if you sell the property, again that use tags along with the um the sale to the new owner, the new owner would be have the right to the same use.

Just to clarify the answer is that it would it would it would uh only apply to sort of a residential dwelling unit being convert, you know, changed.

It would be it would be to any change of use right now, it would be first of all in the residential zones, they are not short-term rentals, guest houses on uh no longer allowed.

They would have to be already uh in use and um already uh existing now.

In terms of if this would apply to any commercial property now generally in like you yours in the waterfront uh business and also the general business to anyone who wanted to now convert one of the uses if it was commercial upstairs, if it was a long-term residential unit upstairs to a uh guest house.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, Johnson Carlin.

I would also highly encourage uh any owners, potential owners who have concerns about the resolution and about its ultimate uh or about its path where it travels, what the ultimate resolution is.

Um consult the lawyer.

Consult somebody who is Mr.

Bean is great and can answer questions uh to the degree that it is appropriate, but uh you should likely have your own attorney.

Right.

Okay, for this question, Council Psy.

So I want to state thanks staff for the for the work on this.

I think we look to do a few things.

First, we're gonna hold harmless those who have made an investment in our city on basic assumptions as to what the rules are so that they can function under uh the permission they've already been granted.

Um the second is to ensure that this is not a wholesale ban on short-term rentals.

We acknowledge the important space it fills within our hospitality network here.

What it's designed to do is really target two things as I understand it.

The first is the parking crunch, the business of a variance that allows you to have off-site parking in some instances quite some distance away is causing a parking crunch in our dense neighborhoods downtown.

Um that quite frankly is putting a burden on those residents that do live in those areas.

The second is really trying to get at the conversion of commercial spaces.

Um we know that the occupancy of short-term rentals oftentimes is uh is only for a minority of the year.

Our commercial storefronts are part of the historic character of this community.

And so walking down um a Spring Street and not having Royal Mail there or the antique shops, um, walking down Thame Street and not being able to stop by Gardner Provisions, right?

Um, is not the type of thing we want to see.

However, we do acknowledge that for those spaces that are conforming that are playing by the same rules that are a residential home would have to play by in that area, uh, that we do want to leave an avenue open for short-term rentals because of the role they do play in filling out the hospitality network, so long as it's not at the expense of our business community and our residents who live in the immediate area.

That's all.

Thank you, Council.

All right, uh, let's uh move to vote.

So uh all those in favor of the communication, uh please raise your right hand.

Any opposed?

I have it.

Okay, next we're going to go to the resolution.

Um let's see uh chairholder um supporting the creation of a funded resiliency and sustainability program and requesting enabling legislation for a local conveyance fee.

Second, we have motion or second, any discussion.

Um I'm gonna make a motion to well, I didn't actually make a motion, I just announced it.

So whatever motion you want to make.

So I'm making a motion that we uh are to continue uh this resolution uh in order to hold a public workshop so there could be more discussion on on this um possible uh conveyance tax and so we can get um more facts out and numbers also when they do uh have questions on it, or when it does come to uh the point where we ask our legislators to put this into uh legislation with the general assembly, uh have a clear and direct idea of what is being proposed.

Um so I asked for a second, second.

All right, motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

I mean posed, I have it.

Thank you.

Okay, licenses and permits.

Uh the motion to approve the Broadway Street Fair doing business as Broadway Street Fair 1 to 200 Broadway and Washington Square, October 10th, 2026, from 12 p.m.

to 6 p.m.

with a street closure request of Broadway and Washington Square.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

Mr.

Chair.

Council Pinick.

Um, I do just have one question with uh street closing.

I'm wondering if someone can clarify emergency access, um, how it's handled.

I'm sorry, can you uh can you repeat that?

Sure.

I'm wondering with the street closures if someone could clarify how we're gonna handle emergency access.

They do.

Um yeah, I mean, this is not like 10 years, but yeah.

So that's okay.

I still want to know.

They use a fire trucks to block some of the streets.

Jason had it supervisor.

Um I'm just wondering, Charlie was like, oh, it's it's been going on for 10 years.

I know, but like I'm curious like how we handle the emergency access with the streets being closed.

Uh we have a two-way traffic on Wheatland Boulevard, so there'll be uh needs more traffic that way.

We go up through uh we make uh quality park uh two-way.

Uh that's wide enough.

We have a removal parking from there so they can get in and out through there or the other access around.

Uh we also have uh patrol units that will are in that area along with the fire department that they have uh they're accepted for.

Okay, thank you, Sergeant.

You're welcome.

Any further discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve an annual entertainment license, new class A indoor Newport Protective Club, 596 Thane Street to have entertainment Monday through Friday from 11 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

and Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m.

to 1 a.m.

This is a second hearing, Mr.

Chair.

This is continued from January 14th.

Okay, we have a motion and second.

Um we continued this from from uh our last meeting uh because the protective club did not have any representation to answer questions, uh specifically brought up by a uh a resident of the area.

So um I would ask uh if we have the uh owner or uh operator of the protective club here tonight.

You want to come up to the podium, please.

Uh one for six watson by boys.

Thanks.

Um so the the question that came up uh last week was um basically the hours of operation that you want, what kind of entertainment are you wanting to do?

We just need a clarification uh from you as uh as the operator.

Yeah, the entertainment license again in the previous maintenance like I mentioned was uh for TVs and music in building going through the speakers.

I think I applied in the application process.

I think a one-man band, I think I specified on that from six to ten, a one or a two-man band.

And um, that's pretty much what I'm moving for.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh any discussion or questions from the council?

Uh any uh yep, council mate.

Um, so I I know that some of the residents had concerns about the time frame till 1 a.m.

So if you're only going to did you say 10 p.m.

For live music, yes for live music.

Yeah, okay.

Um my understanding the entertainment license I'm applying for is for the TVs and the music in house, which is gonna go on till one a.

Till one a.m.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

All right, and anyone from the public.

I wasn't sure I couldn't hear things.

Chuck Baldock, Dixon Street.

I agree with Scott.

The live music is the only thing that's been truly the concern.

And so if it's a 10 a at 10 p.m., that's great.

It's the 1 p.m.

And with their wonderful marketing and their wonderful membership, a number of you as well.

You know that it's a pretty big and booming little club in a neighborhood residential buffer.

That's all we're asking is that perhaps at 10 o'clock the live music gets shut down, not the entire entertainment license.

That way, with the crowds dispersing, we have a little bit of peace and quiet.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh any further public comment.

Okay, any further discussion from the council.

All right.

So uh all those in favor of motion to close the public hearing second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All the favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Uh motion to approve the annual entertainment license for Newport Protective Club.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All is in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it.

Motion um to approve an annual entertainment license expansion, class B outdoor, FastNet Inc.

One to three Broadway to have outdoor entertainment daily from 10 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

on the rear patio.

This is a first hearing, Mr.

Chair.

Do we have a second?

First motion and second.

All right.

So this was continued from our last meeting, January 14th.

Uh, we had asked the uh the owner operator of Fastnet and the uh couple um neighbors that had uh some issues with this uh outdoor entertainment license uh to kind of work things out.

And so I would ask uh we have the owner present of FastNet.

Um what has happened uh with those discussions.

Yes, uh hi Finn Barr Murray, the owner of the FastNet pub.

Uh since our last meeting two weeks ago, uh I've met the neighbors twice.

I actually met them today as well for our final meeting, and we have come to um an agreement on what we want to do out in the back patio.

And basically, according to this here, it says that we are um we're gonna have entertainment daily from 10 to 11, a bit broad in the sense that we're not putting bands out there or and any live entertainment or entertainment.

The only thing we are applying for is uh what we've agreed with the neighbors is three TVs, and they're not gonna be amplified.

There's going to be no speakers um with amplification, but we will be using the speakers in the actual TV itself, and they've agreed to that.

And we had uh we had a sound uh decibel reader, and we walked around the neighborhood, and you literally can uh we had the TV of up to a hundred uh maximum volume, and literally you can't hear a thing once you go uh behind the Spring Street area.

So they're happy, I think, reasonably happy.

You know, they're waiting to they obviously want to you know see if it's gonna be a problem, but I don't see it being a problem as long as we don't amplify the speakers and we're okay with not doing that, you know.

So um I as far as I know, and as that meeting was today, I think we're we're we're pretty good with the neighbors.

Um they're gonna agree.

I don't think there's Jim and Amy.

Um so uh that's that's it.

We're not gonna do any other entertainment besides TVs out the patio.

Just three TVs, that's it.

And uh the um the silent from the actual TV.

Great, thank you.

So any questions for the owner?

No.

Um Jim, you want to come on?

It's uh Jim Simmons 26 Spring Street.

Um I'd like to thank Finbar for his cooperation and discussions and trying to get ahead of what we were concerned could be a big problem for the neighborhood.

And the resolution that he outlined is what we agreed is is feasible.

We hope that this year goes as we all hope it will.

And if it doesn't, we can come back next year and address it when they ask for the renewal.

But uh he stated accurately our understanding.

So as long as it's conditioned on those conditions, we're good.

Um thank you.

Any uh discussion or comment from the council council side.

I just want to commend all the parties involved.

I noted this in my weekly newsletter a couple of weeks ago, the level of civility that you've all taken working together.

It's really hard having you know business districts aligned with residences themselves.

Uh and and obviously as residents, we have an important duty to protect our neighborhood and our quality of life.

You all put a lot of sincere effort in a meeting with each other, having a high level of trust and faith in one another.

Um, and from a council's perspective, at least from this counselor's perspective, I know we appreciate it greatly.

So thank you for all the time you put into it.

Um Mr.

Chair, do we need to put that condition into the license?

Okay.

Yes, you should.

Okay.

That's what I think we can do.

Okay.

So um I'm gonna so I should um make an amendment to the uh I think you can make a motion to approve the licensing uh the condition that the um outside area will be limited to uh being volume within that itself.

Okay, so motion to close the public hearing.

Sorry, okay, sorry.

Sorry, money 11 p.m.

Yeah, that's what that's good.

So um motion to close the public hearing and approve the entertainment license with the condition that the outside patio is limited to three televisions um using the speakers within the televisions from the hours of 10 to 11.

And motion and second, any discussion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it.

And I just want to remember just remind it this is a this is the now the first reading.

So I'm sorry, this was yeah, the first reading.

So uh our next meeting will be the second hearing.

So if any unless anything changes, uh we'll have that same uh amendment on the yeah license.

Yeah.

Um motion to approve the entertainment license new class A indoor and class B outdoor quench opco LLC um 95 Longworth to have entertainment indoors daily from 12 p.m.

to 12 30 a.m.

And outdoors Saturday and Sunday from 1 p.m.

to 5 p.m.

This is a second hearing.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Um this is a hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that wants to make a comment?

No, any on the council?

All those in favor say aye.

Motion to close motion to close the public hearing.

Second.

And approve.

And approve.

Motion and second.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Next, we have boards of uh next up.

We have uh appointments of boards and commissions.

Uh the first appointment we have is for the historic district commission.

Uh we'd like to appoint Brooke Richter, moving from an alternate member to a full member three-year term, expiring three twelve twenty-eight.

Second.

I have a motion and second, any discussion.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Smith.

Um, you know, I I want to thank anybody that that puts into apply to any of our boards and commissions.

Um, and I don't hold any negativity or ill will towards anybody that wants to um be reappointed or uh move from an alternate member to a full member.

The issue that I have is that we currently don't have that information of what we do with an alternate member to become a full member in any of our ordinances.

Um we don't have it documented anywhere.

So for me, I I can't in good conscience uh approve this appointment only because I'm still very concerned about what our processes are with how our members um are appointed.

So for that, I will not be able to approve this appointment.

Mr.

Chair.

Council.

My understanding is that it is up to the council to uh an alternate member is has an infinite number of years.

There's no um there's not the the term doesn't expire.

Um but the council has the um the the right to move an alternate from an alternate position to a full member.

It's up to the council as to who they decide to pick from the alternate positions.

Mr.

Chair.

Usually the recommendation is based on their attendance and their activity at regular meetings.

So I would, and it's it comes from the chair, chair of the uh committee.

So I I fully would endorse um or vote for uh Ms.

Rick or two continue as a full member.

Council.

This question for the solicitor.

By the way, the terms of a personality profile attendance, I think Miss Richter is a great appointment, but appointments to historic district commission require interview, correct?

Uh yes, I believe it's one of the boards that it is that yes per council rules.

Um when we look at we've appointed Miss Richter as an alternate, we went through the appropriate process to interview at the time, but she serves perpetually, so she can extend essentially between different councils, right?

Yes.

If somebody is elevating from an alternate to a full member, we're making that appointment.

Is that a gray area in the rules, or is it pretty clear that once we've interviewed them as an alternate, we've interviewed them for the board, and so they're they're good to be moved.

The certainly the ordinances don't address that, but the alternate member, it's been the practice of the council since I've been sitting in this chair or in that office, and is to they select from the alternates.

Uh there's been instances where they have moved a second alternate over a first alternate to sit.

And so it is a it's been the practice over the years of the council to choose from the alternates to to move them forward.

I don't believe there's ever been you know re-interviewing uh at that point.

Um so uh it is a practice uh of the councils, and but it is not something the ordinance addressed, and perhaps over the years there hasn't been a need to um based on the fact that it has never been addressed in the ordinances.

So am I just to shorten up that explanation, the ordinance is silent on the issue of when somebody is already existing on the board in this intermediate capacity, in an alternate capacity.

And and to tell you the truth, I believe um, even in zoning, the enabling legislation and zoning that addresses alternates.

Uh I don't believe they have any language in there that says the alternate uh come will jump into the on the full board uh once there's a vacancy.

And so in those instances, but we do have languages, some of it that will say when a member is not present, like zoning in zoning where the alternate sits.

Right, and this they have the full decision-making authority, and so where statute is silent, we look to practice to guide us on what's appropriate.

So in this instance, what we're doing where the statute, as my colleague has noted, is ambiguous and silent.

We are, as the vice chair is noted, looking to practice to guide us on this one.

So you're probably right.

This is something that should be cleared up, as is Councillor Segley, but this is practice is how we've we've operated here for a while, and there's nothing that is inconsistent with the law that would allow us to follow that.

I would say that's the case.

Council Department.

Yeah, um, it's always uh in the past, what has happened, uh you want somebody there that has not only attended the meetings regularly and given input on occasion as an alternate, uh, but also know that they really want to be a full member of the historic district.

There's a lot of information they have to learn.

There's places they have to visit, and um usually um we will acknowledge from the chair who produces a maybe one or two names.

Um, and in this case, I certainly think it's warranted.

We have had situations where they haven't recommended an alternate to fill, and we send out the application and do the interviews.

So I think, you know, we're we do it correctly.

And uh really the chair um of the commission a lot of times can advise us if in fact he or she feels he doesn't have members that are qualified to uh serve.

And in that case, we would be doing interviews.

Mr.

Chair?

Yep, Council Smith.

Um and I have no issues with alternates.

I I think it's it's a great practice to have.

I think that all of the commissions should have alternates.

Um the benefit of that is that they don't run into a situation where they can't continue with their meeting because they don't have a quorum.

Um my concern is that the majority of our commissions have sort of a wait list of people who have applied to them over the years, that because this information is not contained in our ordinances, it is a little confusing to those that have applied as to why they're not either getting an interview or or being overlooked for uh a position that has become available.

So I would just like to recommend that maybe our our ordinance is is looked at and potentially revised to include that information, just for clarity purposes for those that are on the wait list.

Thank you very much uh for many of the reasons that counselor Kamzevar mentioned earlier, namely uh ambiguity and certainly for the reason uh that council Smythe mentioned with respect to the opportunity for council members, two of whom did not have the opportunity to interview uh a candidate for one of just four, perhaps five boards of commissions, which require council interviews and recommendations.

Uh I will be voting no on this.

Thank you.

Um, on I will say this.

So on uh with with the five boards and commissions that we have to uh do full interviews, you know.

We do have some do have alternates.

Um the whole purpose of having the alternate is to, as has been mentioned, to have them jump in.

So when a seat does open up, it it would seem to me that it would be a natural move to recommend that that alternate fills that seat as long as they that's what they would like to do.

Um in this case.

I know we interviewed uh Ms.

Richter in October uh before this council came on board, and I know we have two new members.

Uh, but this person was appointed by this council and not by the previous council.

So there has been uh time for and and we've known that this person has been on this docket again.

And there's been times that councils can actually interview them without having a full interview.

So if there's any question whether this person was qualified or not, there's been time for it to have that to happen, and there's been time to have that discussed with you know with myself before making this recommendation to appoint this person to the full seat.

Um so therefore I don't see any reason why uh we should not approve uh Brooke as a full member of the HDC.

So um with that being said, I will ask for a vote on uh appointing Brooke Richter for a three-year term expiring 3128 uh to uh from an alternate member to a full member of the historic district commission.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, any opposed?

Okay, opposed.

All right, let's do a show of hands.

Uh raise your hand if you uh approve.

Raise your right hand if you do not three, she approved.

All right.

Next up, uh we have a planning board appointment.

Uh John Greashin, three-year term expiring January 28th, the year 2029.

Second.

I'll move Mr.

Green, Mr.

Chairman.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Ayes have it.

Uh next up we have uh two reappointments to the planning board.

We will take them separately.

Um first up is Margaret Polski, uh three-year term expiring October 31st, 2028.

Second, we have a motion and second.

Will there been any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

As we as counselors know, and as many newporters, residents and others know, uh, but many more do not know.

The city council does not sit in on meetings of as members, voting members specifically, uh, not even ex officio for that matter.

The city council members do not sit in and cast votes on applications which are before the planning board, the zoning board, or the HDC.

So one of the only options we have as members of the council, when our constituents are frankly, and I'll use uh the term specific to the appointments before us, not the people, but the conditions surrounding us the appointments.

When members of the public are up in arms about what the planning board, zoning board or HDC might have done in their official capacity, they turn to members of the council and they often ask, why did you allow this to happen?

And it takes a good deal of time to explain uh that we do not vote as I just mentioned.

So when in fact our constituents oppose or support proposals before those three commissions that I just mentioned, boards and commissions that I just mentioned.

The council has an opportunity to either agree with the public or disagree with the public in very limited ways.

One of the ways where we exercise that opinion is before us tonight.

We can reject or we can approve candidates, applicants for those three commissions.

In particular, we can reject or approve re-nominations for those commissions, based, of course, on a record.

And I will close with another minute or so uh saying that I will be voting against, although both candidates are very fine people, everybody before us this evening, and almost everybody who is always before us with regard to boards, commissions, matters before the council, etc., are very, very fine people, and their hearts are in the right place, and they serve the citizens of Newport with dignity.

But I'm very troubled by the immense volume of emails, texts, calls, etc.

that I received regarding a recent action unanimous by the planning board as to the development in specific terms of 525 Broadway.

The planning board as a body has the right to approve requested variances, requested relief, or reject it.

In the case of 525 Broadway at its most recent meeting, the members of the planning board unanimously, including two members who are up for reappointment this evening, approved uh variances, which in the R10 zone, the 525 Broadway uh location, would allow only 13 housing units and would require 76 parking spaces, according to my research.

Uh but in fact the zoning, I'm sorry, the planning board approved after discussion and after input from no less than uh again, my research.

Uh please let me know if I'm wrong on anything.

74 members of the public objecting, and three members of the public in favor of the plan.

The planning board unanimously approved uh the variants to allow the project to go forward with 41 parking spaces, 41 of the 76 required.

They also were giving or also gave Leeway uh with respect to uh the number of units that they allowed.

The number of units again, uh, according to what I have for my research was 13 allowed.

The planning board permitted a variance relief, if you will, which allowed 38 units.

In speaking for those residents that I've heard from whose quality of life in particular, density and parking and traffic safety will be immensely affected.

I am voting no on these two candidates and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair.

Um I can appreciate what Councillor Carlin had just said.

Um, as in previous meetings, I I see I've mentioned that I see boards as a different animal than our commissions because they are making decisions based upon items that will impact quality of life of the residents.

I do think that the requirements to even apply for our planning and zoning boards, um, should be included.

These individuals should have some form of professional or educational background in these fields to be able to be on these boards.

Um, I think that's something that we need to take a look at and to consider, along with taking a look at our planning and zoning ordinances.

Um I I can appreciate these these two individuals and the time of service that they have been on the planning board.

But once again, we we also have a very long list of people on the wait list um waiting to get on the boards and commissions.

And so because of that, um, and because I think that there needs to be specific qualifications to be on these boards, I will not be able to vote uh to approve these two re reappointments.

Thank you.

Okay, um, keep in mind we're taking these one at a time.

Um so I think it should it should be wise to be careful that we're not lumping people together um in this situation.

So um is there any other discussion from the council?

Yes, once again, I just would like to acknowledge that uh both the appointments to the planning board have worked on them for years.

We don't have to agree with every decision they make.

You know, that it's tough.

Sometimes it's tough.

I know in my own neighborhood I have found that.

But these two people have the experience and show that they have the uh competency to serve on this board.

And I think um, well, I'll be supporting them because I think that it's a good way to go.

They kind of uh learn on the job when they're first to point it.

Granted, there are applicants for all these different boards, and all the council members should come to the interviews.

That doesn't necessarily happen.

Mr.

Chair, Council Segel.

I believe in the interviews, which I was there for every one of them, um, that the candidates who are on the board now gave very good reasons as to why they voted the way they did, and that it's a matter of law and uh how they had to remove their own feelings about things.

So you know what?

I I'm I this is I think this is very troubling.

I I think that we need to appoint people who have common sense who are, I don't think they have to have specific qualifications.

I think just an um having an open mind, I think is something that is important.

And I don't think that we have to agree with everything.

I haven't agreed with everything that the zoning or planning board has done, but I'm not going to take retribution on them either.

Retalize.

Um, I appreciate everything that everyone has to say, and I definitely appreciate the work that um people appointed to our boards and commissions.

Um do so thoughtfully, um, and with their time um as volunteers.

The only thing that I I will say is um I think sometimes like a fresh perspective um is needed when it comes to certain things, and I also um appreciate like the institutional knowledge that people who have been on boards and commissions for a long time.

Have um, but I also think that we need to open up opportunity to people um in our community who all also have knowledge about these things.

So, you know, while while I am very grateful for the work that they've done, um, I do support um bringing in new and fresh perspectives as well.

Uh Council Sai, do you have anything you want to add?

I was gonna just let this keep moving here, but well, you know, besides me, you're the last one.

I I had the opportunity to interview the candidates.

I understand with disagreeing with individual decisions that were made.

Um, and I think that my colleagues are are right to voice their concerns and exercise their option on reappointment based on that.

I will say this uh about Dr.

Polski.

This is somebody who has specific expertise in this space.

That came through very clearly in the interviews.

This is somebody who has a master's in public administration with a focus specifically on policy.

There are a number of academic pieces that she has published specifically on the issues of planning and infrastructure.

Um she is somebody who is at the war college specifically helping to advise on a range of topics, but her research has included on planning type matters.

And so I don't think it's entirely fair to say that she doesn't have the requisite professional background.

Her experience on the planning board since you know, notwithstanding.

Um, so that's why specific to her, I'll be voting in favor.

Counselor.

Okay.

Um I just want to shed a little bit of light on uh the situation this time around with the planning board and why we why we are here right now and have such a in-depth discussion on it.

Um it's there's been some decisions on the planning board in in the past year or so that yeah, there are there are very for some people they're very troublesome, and for some people are the their form.

And that's everyone has their opinion, that's all well and good.

The planning board doesn't act on a motion, they act on rules and regulations that are put in place that they have to abide by.

Now because there was such pushback on reappointments uh when we had um uh originally had uh Ms.

Polski up, who is the currently the acting chair of the planning board, um, who had who just got that that seat uh within the the past year, so she hasn't had a full term as as chair.

Um, because of some uh public pushback or or concern is is why we went back and interviewed uh I believe it was eight people for the planning board.

And what I did with the councils, the councils that were at these interviews.

I asked after we were done, and again, there was eight people.

I asked for and there's three seats.

So I asked each counselor to give me three names that you'd like to see fill these seats.

With the exception of one counselor.

Ms.

Polski got four positive votes.

So out of seven possible councils, she's got four out of seven.

Therefore, she's I put her on as a recommendation for reappointment.

Okay.

Uh now saying that, I am gonna call to a vote.

All those in favor, Mr.

Chairman, Margaret Polski.

I just called the vote.

Uh all those in pay.

Mr.

Chairman, can we have a vote on calling the vote?

I I'd like to comment on your comments.

Um course we can.

I I'm asking for more time to debate.

Oh, okay.

I'm asking for more times.

I'm I'm sorry, uh Vice Chair Segley, I didn't mean to interrupt you.

My colleagues, I'm asking for an additional two minutes to debate this.

And no.

Uh hold on.

Council Collins, is this on Ms.

Polski specifically?

It is.

Thank you.

Okay.

Go ahead, Council Collin.

Thank you.

I just wanted to uh address your comment, Mr.

Chairman, when you said that uh the planning board members do not vote based on a motion, they vote based on uh regulations before us.

And I appreciate your commentary, uh, which is one of the reasons why that is to say voting on the regulations before us or before the planning board members, that is ordinances.

Uh that's again one of the reasons why I will be voting no on this nomination.

Uh I believe I spelled out very specifically what the zoning ordinances allow with regard to 525 Broadway.

Uh, and although they may not have the candidate and others may not have voted based on a motion, uh, they certainly took much liberty with the zoning ordinances regulations, if you will, Mr.

Chairman.

This is this is a zoning board, not a planning.

Excuse me.

Can I can I please finish when I'm trying my very very best.

Carlin, please finish up.

Thank you.

Appreciate that, Mr.

Chairman.

They took great liberty with respect to the regulations, the ordinance ordinances, which were before them, which are a matter of law.

Uh, and in fact, uh more than doubled what we permit.

Not just this council, past councils who set the ordinances.

What good say I are the ordinances governing zoning if we appoint a board, which completely ignores them.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Chair, I just want to say that the zoning board has different responsibilities from the planning board.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um again, all those in favor of Margaret Polski to a three-year term expiring 1031, 2028.

Please raise your right hand.

All those opposed.

I four three.

She's approved.

Uh next up, we have uh Teresa Stokes.

Uh three-year term expiring 1031, 2028.

Or see on the planning board.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Okay.

I will um once again uh basically repeat what I just said about Ms.

Polski.

Um, judging by the feedback I got from council, uh Miss Stokes received five votes in favor of the seat on the planning board from these from this council, Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Quick question related to the feedback that you received from the council.

Was that feedback received before the public became aware of who the candidates for renomination would be, or was it received after?

Uh so this was received after all the interviews were had taken place.

So again, I asked, was it received before the public knew who the renominations would be, or was it received after the public knew?

In other words, oh before before I said the public received, um, I received everyone's feedback and and uh and took the recommendation of the top three vote getters from council.

Thank you very much.

So it's it's entirely feasible that once, although members of the council may have said I support so and so it's entirely feasible that once the council made its agenda public and showed uh the members uh showed the residents of Newport, showed the public who the recommended candidates were.

Some candidate, some council members might have received uh feedback from the public saying, uh-uh, don't do that, and change their minds.

Is that not feasible?

No, ms Mr.

Chair, could I just these names were on the docket, and we continued the discussions in order to hold interviews of additional people.

So there was a reason for us to continue because there seemed to be some question on this council as to you know, appointing.

So we interviewed other people, and um, these were the votes that came out of those interviews.

Okay, uh, so to continue.

Hold on.

So to just to continue to Council Carlin's point.

The council, any counselor can change their mind at any time, which is why we're here right now, and we vote as a council.

I do not vote these positions in.

Even though people think I do, I do not vote them in.

I recommend and I recommend these people based on the feedback I got from you as counselors, those that were there for the interviews at least.

Council Smythe or Council Sai, who who'd like to go?

I'll jump in if that's good.

I uh the power to move a nomination lies solely with the mayor, and it's our power to ultimately render consent, right?

And that's the challenging part of this.

I just want to say my my my colleague, Councilor Carlin, is 100% right.

The planning board, unlike other boards, has an enormous amount of latitude.

They do have to operate within rules and laws.

Um, but they render advisory opinions to us.

They now have increased decision-making authority over prior boards.

Um, and so I I think they are my colleagues are absolutely within their right to oppose this nomination if they wish, based on their disagreement with policy decisions that were get getting made, regardless of you know what past practice might be.

I'm supporting them because I actually think they have made good decisions.

I think they have made the best decisions they could given the facts set.

It might not make everybody happy.

They've operated within the law, they've operated within our long-range plans, and in those areas where they've had latitude to exercise judgment, they've done so.

But I think that my colleagues and our community members who are not happy with those decisions are fully entitled to their opinion on that and to vote accordingly.

Thank you, Council.

Council Smith, did you want to say no?

No, yeah.

No.

And again, just to read it.

I I respect everyone's opinion.

You know, um, as far as far as who we want to put on the planning boards, it's a very important position.

Uh we received of the eight people that we interviewed, they were very good interviews.

It wasn't like this was like, oh, it's these three, and I'm not even gonna worry about the other people.

Not at all.

There's some there's some great candidates that could I could see um a couple of them I even uh could see on on some other boards or commissions as well.

Um and we greatly appreciate people taking their time to want to volunteer for these positions because it's not it's it's a thankless job, much like the city council is um but what I want to be careful of is you know, going through this this this type of you know of back and forth and and conversations is that I don't want to scare people away from wanting to run for a board of commission.

They are extremely important, you know, and a lot of how we how we shape uh uh shape our city is because of how the people on these boards and commissions, especially the five that we that we interview and and approve, um how they handle themselves.

It's it's extremely important that we make sure that we respect you know the process and and we go through it.

And I and I greatly um want to thank the the city council for for going through this this interview process.

Um it's not easy to get seven of us and then however many people are interviewing, because at the same time we were also interviewing people for the beach commission.

We're also interviewing people for the academic uh advisory commission.

Um, and then we have uh uh some I think another some more boards and commission seats opening up pretty soon as well.

Um and also the comp plan um advisory group.

So um it's it's not it's not easy, it's a lot of time, and uh I appreciate everyone's effort um that put that effort into to do so.

Mr.

Chair, uh Council Cycling.

I just I just want to say also that I don't want um commission or board members to feel that with these votes that they have to be afraid of the council.

This is this is they need to be able to have to be able to use their judgment and we put them on there in order to do that.

I just I don't want people being scared that somehow the council is not going to agree with them.

Um they they have certain standards, they follow those standards, and that's the end of it.

Um I'd like to uh vote on the appointment of Teresa Stokes to a three-year term expiring 1031 2028 to the planning board, uh reappointment, I should say.

Uh all's in favor, raise your right hand.

All those opposed, raise your right hand.

Four to three.

Um, and then uh so once again, I encourage people, especially those who'd like to be specifically vocal about a lot of these boards of commissions to please take your time, come apply for these boards of commissions, and you know, do do what you can do because it's again it's a it's a thankless job and it's a lot, a lot of work.

So thank you.

Okay, moving on to communications from the city manager, action item six five five one.

The department of public services recommends awarding a contract to VHB Inc.

of Providence, Rhode Island using the town of Portsmouth's on-call engineering services contract for the purpose of providing planning and engineering design services for the expansion of the Narragansett Avenue Cliff Walk Restrooms in a not to exceed amount of 79,700.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion from the council?

Uh uh we do have director creen here.

If we have any questions that um I'm just just I just have a question.

Um, the the uh cliffwalk commission is being included in all of these discussions, correct?

Absolutely.

In fact, they uh we we saw it and received their endorsement.

Okay.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, Council Pinna.

Um, I was just curious about the ADA access for the restrooms.

Theresa Crane, director of Brazilian sustainability sitting in for Director Bill Burchio.

Um, that will be part of the discussion.

The scope of work includes generation of alternatives, up to four alternatives.

Um, and we will ensure that ADA access is addressed.

Mr.

Chair, the current ones are ADA, they are accessible, correct.

Uh any other comment?

Okay, public uh Mr.

Rice, yeah, come on up.

Uh Pete Rice, uh one Harrison Lane used to live in the fifth ward, now I live in the third ward.

It's quite the move.

It's a state of mind.

Uh uh I'm urging the uh the council to uh uh continue this.

I don't think uh it's well thought out.

Uh what you're asking for is $80,000.

It'll take 10 months, and you'll have nothing other than a plan.

No uh no facilities, no nothing, just a plan.

I don't think these people have been here before, they did the last one.

It shouldn't be that tricky to uh do it again.

In any case, I think it's the wrong wrong path we're taking here.

Um building more concrete houses.

I think it's a lot be a whole lot cheaper and uh a lot more expedient to put just use port-a-potties, which we've done uh uh for the last year on the south side.

Uh this plot kind of would uh perhaps uh replace those porta potties with something similar to what uh is there now and it isn't gonna cost eighty thousand dollars.

The cost for the last restroom was you know half a million least we're gonna do that again.

This one doesn't work in the winter time.

It uh will require uh considerable uh plumbing and more electricity.

And uh down at the end of uh Narragansett, there's gonna be a whole lot of construction going on uh with the uh cliffwalk uh uh repair.

I just think it's a it's a bad it's a bad fit.

Uh I I urge you to continue this and let the cliffwalk commission pick uh uh pick the four some of the four options uh that uh if we're gonna go through with this uh for eighty thousand dollars, and it's all paper.

Is that all, Miss Rice?

Uh I just want to mention that uh I understand the uh reluctance to uh deal with uh uh port of potties.

It's tacky, and Newport doesn't like tech.

We'd rather spend a million bucks on a four hole.

And we don't know where it's gonna go.

It's premature, and I think uh uh let the cliffwalk commission have a look at it.

I don't think we did, or I don't think they did.

I I kibbits a little bit questions.

Thank you, Ms.

Rice.

Um I don't know if it's gonna be this is uh directed to city manager or uh director cream.

So I I do have a question that Mr.

Rice brought up that I wanted to ask anyway.

We already have the two restrooms down there.

I don't understand what's the or please just explain to me what the whole point of having going through this whole process again.

Um at the tune of $80,000.

I mean I just don't we know what we're doing.

I I'll first point out that we had an initial um proposal that was for a separate building.

Uh and and that did not go through the Cliff Walk Commission.

Um they expressed some concerns about that design.

Um so we withdrew that um went back to the Cliff Walk Commission to talk about a path forward uh uh that was uh that they could support.

Um they have done that.

Uh the the total capital improvement uh program budget for this item from last year, so fiscal year 26 capital was six hundred thousand dollars.

So this is part of that total amount.

This is the uh production of uh analyses for choosing.

Um that will still leave enough cap space, as it were, uh, to complete the actual construction of the project within budget.

So that this is not an extra expense, it's part of that overall six hundred thousand dollar capital expense.

But I guess I'm still I'm still a little confused as for like I mean, there's not it's not there's not a lot of room down there.

So it's I don't understand where the the survey and you know the uh the conceptual plan, you know, then the base mapping, the site visit, the design.

It's I mean it's it's gonna go either on the north side or it's gonna go on the south side.

It's not gonna go at the bottom of 40 steps, I don't think.

But that's where the porta potties used to go.

I mean, we we kind of truthfully kind of thought that along the same lines when we made our initial proposal.

Uh, but again, there was not only Cliff Walk Commission, but some community pushback at that time as well.

So to be responsive to all of that feedback, which was was urgent and quick, uh, we decided to backpedal and and and go back to the drawing board.

And and I think what we've given you here is a responsible way to do that, that the cliffwalk is in support of.

I I know they're not the policy making body, uh, but they are the the appropriate um a commission in this case to provide expert advice and and and neighborhood you know feeling about the project.

And so we we certainly want to respect that that opinion and and and uh their goals and aspiration.

And in your opinion, is this something that our city staff can't do?

I mean, this is this is this is I I don't believe we have the expertise to do this kind of architectural design.

Uh uh, you know, we we certainly don't necessarily want to make a carbon footprint or a carbon copy of the uh of the existing structure.

Um so uh absent that uh I think we need the architect to come in and take a look at what additional plumbing would be needed um and and the facilities the facilities there in no pun intended.

Okay.

Any further qu uh comments, Council Sai.

So pardon me if this is well covered in here, but does this include all of like the engineering work, the plumbing work, the design, all that, or is this when I see $40,000 for conceptual planning uh with stakeholder engagement?

I'm I it'm just trying to gauge we what what's actually driving the cost on this thing?

I'm getting a nod from Theresa, so uh yes, I I think she can address that, but I believe she'll say yes, it does include all of those things.

I hope I was right reading your nod.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um Teresa Crean, Director of Resilience Sustainability.

Um the conceptual planning task is in response to the Cliff Walk Commission requesting multiple alternatives to evaluate to move forward.

So the rest of this scope was reflected in the first pass that Director Riccio brought forward um with one recommendation to move forward with construction documents.

And this quote does include um construction documents and advertising and management of the bid process to get a contractor to build it as part of that 600,000 that was authorized under the CIP.

That ticket item is in the 40,500 for conceptual planning is in response to generating four up to four alternatives in response to the feedback that was received by the Cliff Walk Commission.

So the the Cliff Walk Commission is essentially stepping in as a design review committee on this as well.

And that cost is is that's driving over half the cost that design on this project.

Um that's helpful.

Thank you.

Comments, questions from the council.

Okay.

All right.

So uh all those in favor, all those in favor of uh Mr.

Chair.

Can I just ask a question?

What is the alternative to doing this?

Is there an alternative?

Can we should we go with Mr.

Riccio's original plan?

I I think we could.

We we could uh I I just caution that that we the city administration received a lot of negative pushback to that initial plan.

So uh I would rather absorb that criticism than than have you as the governing body uh receive that I'll I'll take those arrows any day.

Um but we we could certainly go back to that, and it would probably reduce the cost.

Um, but there may be some there may be some pushback to that.

We were we were surprised by the amount of pushback that we got.

I remember that, yeah.

Mr.

Chair.

Council Sai.

So we budgeted $600,000 to the new restrooms.

Is that correct?

That that's correct.

So does VHP understand the task at hand then is gonna be designing a facility for under a half a million dollars?

They do.

They they they understand that this cost then comes in uh you know, you don't get a bonus for doing that that additional work.

It still has the total cost still has to come in under $600,000 to be within budget.

So none of the four options that are going to be presented.

We're not going to get like here's $300,000, here's $600,000.

By the way, if you wanted a $2 million restroom, here's an option too.

And then we're backed into a corner.

That would be unfortunate, and that's a good point.

And we will make it very clear to the vendor that that is not appropriate.

And not, you know, we would be very disappointed in that type of we take that one step further.

There'll be a breach of contract if they present options in excess of a half a million dollars.

Any objection?

Nope, no objection.

We can we will we will write that in.

Thank you.

I think this is a contract in front of us.

I see this as distinctly different than like the exercise we're going through at the beach right now.

We're trying to imagine what the future could be that we want.

We're dealing with a very utilitarian need here.

We're designing restrooms, and I just want to make sure that the focus is on getting those restrooms built in a way that's appropriate.

Um, but that's also within budget.

And so I don't want this personally, I don't want to see us funding an idealistic, you know, design competition.

We need somewhere for people to have use of facilities within the budget.

If uh if you'd like one recommendation, because I I have the contract in front of me here, but we probably need to go have that written in.

We could continue this until the next meeting, and by then hope hopefully to have that wording in there.

Same resolution.

I'll make a motion to continue.

Okay, motion and second, any discussion.

Um yeah, let's continue this.

Uh all those in favor say aye.

Action item six five five two.

The uh ITC recommends adding to chapter 10.24 of the city of Newport's codified ordinance as follows 10.24.1010, parking prohibited in at all times in designated places.

No person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the following streets.

Add Blackwell Place, North Side beginning at the northwest corner next to 12 Blackwell Place, and proceeding east, a distance of 201 feet, and add Blackwell Place South Side beginning at the intersection of Bedloe Place and proceeding west, a distance of 130 feet.

Uh this says no fiscal impact.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item six five five three.

The police department recommends awarding a contract for the purchase of one 2025 Harley Davidson FLHTP Electra Glide Solo Law Enforcement Motorcycle to Russ Ocean State Inc.

doing business as Russ Ocean State Harley Davidson at 35 Albany Road, Warwick, Rhode Island, based on being the solo qualified bidder meeting all requirements in the request for proposals.

The amount is $19,75.

This is currently budgeted.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

Action item six five five four.

It is recommended that the city council adopt the 2025 Aquidneck Island Regional Hazard mitigation flood management plan for the Aquidneck Island communities, Portsmouth, Newport, and Middletown.

I move approval.

Oh, wait, wait.

So there's been a request uh by administration to withdraw Oh, I'm sorry, thank you.

Motion to withdraw.

Motion and second, any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Action item six five five five.

The Department of Resilience and Sustainability recommends amending amending the 238,946 dollar contract with KCM group of East Providence, Rhode Island for owner project manager services on renovations to the Florence Gray Center in the amount of 110,860, 886 dollars for total contract amount of not to exceed 349,832.

The total amount, including the proposed increase is within the $350,000 budget line item for the owner's project management services in the project master budget approved by the Rhode Island Pandemic Recovery Office.

This is currently budgeted and move approval.

We have motion and second any discussion.

Sure, thank you.

Teresa Cream, director of resilient sustainability.

Um the project is under construction, and the governor has come and seen it.

They did a knock down the wall uh blessing of the construction project.

The um owner project manager for this request is asking basically a a scaled up fee to reflect the change between the 2.9 million that was originally allocated for both Middletown and Newport, and then they increase that budget to 7.5 million.

So we are getting as much as we can out of the owner project manager.

We are meeting weekly with them, and we also have weekly construction meetings.

There are two hours every week allocated for in our schedules for meeting on this project to ensure not only collaboration across middle uh middle town and Newport, um, but to make sure this project stays on track under the pandemic recovery office's requirement to finish it and get a certificate of occupancy by October 31st, 2026, which is ingrained in my brain.

Hard deadline for all of us.

So we're staying on track with compliance.

All of our reporting is up to date with the pandemic recovery office, and we're in uh good status with them.

And I want to especially call out the finance department, Alex Casagrande, who is our master um expert in all things uh finance management for this really complex project.

Thank you.

Um I just want to say this is uh I'm I'm so much looking forward to seeing the completion of this project and what it's gonna do for our community.

So thank you so much for your efforts.

Uh all in favor say aye.

I any opposed action item six five five six.

The fire department recommends awarding a contract to Plan B construction company LLC, Barrington, Rhode Island, for the purpose of installing a new roof gutters and trim work at station five, located at 119 Toro Street, for a total project cost of 316,000.

This is currently budgeted, but it requires additional appropriation of 146,000 that has been identified as an eligible one-time use of the city's committed fund balance for facilities repair and upkeep.

I move approval.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion?

Mr.

Chairman.

Council Carlin.

I support this reluctantly.

You need a new roof, you need a new roof.

Uh and I support this primarily because the chief of the fire department, whom I trust uh 100% is recommending it.

However, uh, let's be uh very blunt and honest with ourselves here.

Uh let's not check that first box as this is currently budgeted.

It's not.

Uh there's a certain amount of money that is budgeted.

The rest of the money, as was mentioned by the vice chair, needs to come from uh what is commonly known as our surplus, our reserve.

And we've worked many years, not this council necessarily, but prior council under former finance director, Laura Citron worked very, very hard for years to bring that fund balance up to a point uh where we are first in the state, frankly, as it relates to a requirement of balance versus operating expenditures.

We should not be nitpicking at the fund balance for things that belong in the SIP that are not in the SIP.

I understand emergencies happen, which is why I'm supporting this.

Nobody wants our firefighters to be wet.

Uh we want a safe environment.

We want a clean and dry environment uh as well.

Uh but let's let's be awfully cautious about uh how we so to speak throw this money around, shall we?

Um secondly, I note that uh there was only one local contractor, A1 Roofing, uh, who apparently bit who did, not apparently, who bid on this uh on this project.

And their bid was very competitive.

Uh they're also a very fine, well-known, well-respected with great work company here in formerly Newport now in Middletown.

We won't hold that against A1.

Uh, but uh why for the cost of $36,000 are we giving it?

We giving this bid to some uh I don't want to say foreign entity, foreign corporation, but uh plenty of Newport County companies that can do the business.

We should be especially respectful uh and give a little leeway to our Newport County businesses who provide not only uh plenty of employment, but as I just mentioned, good work product as well.

Uh I would have chosen A1's A1 roofings uh bid, which is again only some 36,000 less uh than the bid that you are recommending.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I'll sorry a question if I don't know if anybody wants to address Councilor Carlin's question first, though, before I ask a question.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you, Councillor Kamza Barvong.

My question was more of a statement than a question.

I don't think the administration needs to answer why didn't the bid go here?

I think you all understand what I was getting at.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is this structure in the historic district?

I don't I don't I know the boundary is nearby.

I don't know off the top of my head.

Um might yes, it is we have debated extensively the use of composite slate as to whether or not that should qualify as an alternative for historic structures.

If this were the Viking Hotel right next door, would we let them use a composite slate instead of actual slate and a renovation of a roof?

Or alternatively, if this were a resident across the street, could they use a composite slate instead of real slate?

That's a good question.

I I don't know.

I'm not prepared to answer that.

Well, the I I believe the Viking hotel may be in a general business uh zone where that might be allowed.

Um I uh I'm really speaking off the top of my head only because that is a funny area up residential, and then you do have some general business with the businesses up there in the hotel and that.

Yeah, I I think given what they just went through with their windows, they'd probably affirm that they're in a historic district.

But the whole the fire station isn't a historic district, correct?

It is unconfirmed.

Why are we holding middle class families in Newport to a higher standard for their construction than we hold ourselves?

That's I don't have a I don't I don't have a ready answer for that.

I wasn't aware of that distinction coming in.

So if you'd like us to take a second look at this and I I I agree with Councilor Carlin.

I want to see a safe dry roof.

If we approve this tonight, would our planning department and our historic district staff revisit and approve the use of composite slate in lieu of actual slate?

Will that be the recommendation from staff?

I'm I would have to consult with my staff.

I so I I can't speak to that tonight without consulting with my staff.

Because there has to be, if we care that much about the historic consistency of our historic neighborhoods, that we are willing to require that of families who live in Newport, and yet we don't hold ourselves to the same standard with institutional scale projects.

I think there's an inconsistency.

And I think that that inconsistency needs to be addressed.

Um I you know a bunch of the folks that serve in the station, they deserve a dry firehouse just as much as residents in the city deserve dry homes they can afford to live in.

But I know at least one of my former colleagues would be throwing his arms up in the air, jumping up and down uh with this inconsistency, given the fact that we've talked to residents who have been forced to sell their homes to move out of this city because they couldn't afford a new slate roof.

Um and so I'd ask that the administration revisit that and bring back something consistent.

I'm voting against this, even though I'm fully in favor of the project itself at whatever cost is appropriate.

I think the approach the fire department has been taking to bit by bit ensure the structural integrity of this property is excellent.

I commend HARP for all the work that you're doing on this.

I will support the ultimate investment in this, but I think we have to be consistent with the standards we're holding our residents to and do the same with ourselves.

Um yeah.

One of the things that we talk about many, many times in interviews with historic district um commission applicants is whether or not they would be open to using products that look uh like the real thing.

Um but um and so many times they you know we we opine on it, right?

Um I'm not sure that that uh standard applies to city buildings.

I know that might seem silly, um, but um I just I I don't I'm not sure that we hold all of our uh residents to that standard, considering that we have been looking into uh and you know looking into using alternative um products that have more resilience and flooding and and all so I I don't know.

I mean, I I understand where you're coming from, but uh I I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm gonna approve this only because I I feel that uh even though it isn't a historic district, I think it's it's it's really kind of the the future of the way to go.

And as much as I like a slate roof, uh I think that we have to look forward at different um products, Mr.

Chair, Council Science.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the adoption of of new products.

And if that is the case, and that is something that we believe the product measures up to for one of the city's most historic buildings in the heart of our historic districts.

I mean, we're talking, you know, right next to the historic society, Toro Synagogue.

Um, why not be this the point at which rather than finding a loophole in the rule, that being this the city doesn't need to comply, we actually fix the rule itself uh and pass the historic district commission to rule that this is the new standard by which roofs can be repaired in the city on historic structures.

Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna make a motion that we continue this.

I I think we need more information.

Second, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh we have a motion and a second for a continuation, Council Carlin.

On the continuation, please, Mr.

Chairman.

I disagree.

This has been brought to us as a need.

Uh, if it were something that did not involve the safety of our firefighters, and I do believe it extends to the realm of safety, then I would continue it.

This is a needed item.

The more we delay, the more our firefighters are subject to these conditions.

Please vote against the continuance.

Mr.

Chair, Council Sagless.

Is the roof leaking now?

Is it what is the condition of the roof now?

Good evening.

Harp Donnelly, the fire chief.

Yeah, the roofs would actually the firefighters have done a repair, uh temporary repair by applying some uh aluminum paint to one of the areas to stop the leak.

Leak has been going on for years.

Uh so right presently we don't have a leaking condition, but it's just a matter of time.

It's the original roof.

Uh and I don't know that this composite material is not allowed.

I don't know that.

So if if you were to continue, we could find that out.

Well, I'm just wondering, can you wait two weeks until until we get more information?

And um is there a possibility of just showing us pictures of what the old what a slate roof would look like and what this um type of uh roof would look like.

Absolutely.

This is the same material that we used at um our fire station headquarters on 21 West Melborough Street in the front, and you really cannot tell the difference between the composite material and the original slate, which is on another section of the roof.

But we absolutely can wait.

The fact that we're even talking about this, I'm thrilled because it's been we've needed it for a while and and we're this much closer to actually getting it done.

Uh I don't uh for myself I don't mind reaching out to our historic um to our historic preservation specialist here and asking the question uh is are the materials that we're suggesting to use in the line with what the requirements of the neighborhood would be.

I think that's a very fair question to ask.

So uh giving me this for the next meeting is absolutely fine by me.

If we could, what would be helpful to have from the historic planner um in this instance is her opinion that composite slate is a comparable product and meets the requisite standard for um the historic district would be terrific to have.

I think that would be something that would the benefit would extend far beyond just the station, because we could use this standard for other municipal buildings, um, and it could help us better understand uh what would be appropriate future.

Because I know it's one of those questions we have asked, and I know that the members themselves tend to look to our city experts.

Um I think that would be absolutely terrific as long as it does not endanger uh the safety and the welfare of the department down there.

You'll have my full support when it comes before us on that.

But I think getting that clarification uh would be really, really helpful.

El work at getting that for you because I'm not uh I'm under the impression that like materialism is appropriate as long as it looks like the original.

But I'll find that out and we could talk about it uh next time we all get together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I have a quick question for administration, and I apologize if this is a uh stupid question, but why wouldn't they not have to go in front of HDC to get approval?

City buildings are exempt.

Government if they are involved in the essential public function.

Generally not subject uh generally not subject to their zoning laws.

It's when they step out of uh performing a essential government function um is when they would be, they could be subject to the zoning laws.

For example, I believe out at one point when we had the Crowley Med School, the state was proposing that school and zoning would have prohibited their ability to use a certain building, but because it was education, it was considered an essential government function.

So they were not subject to zoning.

Here I would say providing firefighting services is an essential government service.

So I would say that the uh zoning laws would not apply to uh the municipal use there and uh the building.

So that's so that would include the parameters that HDC imposes on using like materials.

Yes.

Right.

All right.

So we have a motion to continue.

Uh all those in favor, raise your right hand.

All is opposed.

Just me.

Just me.

Uh action item six five seven.

The Harbors Department recommends awarding the economic impact study regatta's Newport Harbor under RFP number 2026, March uh zero zero two to performance research of Newport, Rhode Island to conduct an economic impact study of the regattas in Newport waters.

This is currently budgeted, and I move approval.

We have a motion and second, any discussion.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Where's the budget?

Where's the item budgeted?

Is it within the harbor the Harbor Masters overall budget or is it I don't recall.

I believe it's within the the maritime um fund.

Thank you.

Um enterprise fund.

It is that two eight fixed number at the end of the digit string that indicates uh I don't have a percentage.

That's some kind of operating fund.

Um so this fits within his operating fund.

So we're gonna take $35,000, which could go based on the fact that it's an enterprise fund item.

Uh it could go to other expenditures that would qualify under the enterprise fund.

And instead, we're gonna use the $35,000 to commission a study uh on how great the regattas in Newport are in order to attract regarders to Newport.

That's essentially what we're doing here.

That's a ridiculous uh waste of $35,000 of enterprise fund money.

Every sailor in the universe understands that Newport is one of the top five destinations in the world uh for sailing and regatta.

But we're gonna spend $35,000 of enterprise fund money to show the world how great we are.

Not me.

I do want to make one point of clarification.

Uh we would spend $25,700.

Discover Newport would be chipping in 10,000.

Okay.

Well if uh just the to Council Carlin to just uh kind of come back your point a little bit, and I understand where you're coming from, but uh this also comes from the waterfront commission wanting to quantify the economic benefits of the regatta.

And when we started the meeting off tonight, we brought up that we had uh energy environment commission that had a communication in front of us, and we are six to one said we need to we have these commissions, so we need to listen to them and take what they have.

So here is I don't see in what the difference is with the waterfront commission is looking to do this as well to give the city uh uh economic information on the benefits generated by these events.

Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, sir, Council Carlin.

Thank you very much for that input.

Um I beg to differ, far different.

Really?

Apples to oranges.

Uh earlier this evening, one of the first items that we debated was whether or not to accept a letter from the Energy and Environment Commission stating their opinions uh on the a proposed uh moratorium on uh future gas hookups.

What we have here this evening is an official recommendation from the administration to spend spend, which is not what the uh letter from the environment and energy commission members did.

Uh, but we are spending here, if we approve this, 25,000 of our enterprise fund money, which could go somewhere else, uh, and we are not simply accepting from the waterfront commission a recommendation uh that X or Y be done.

Uh this is an administration action, which certainly was not the case at the beginning of our council agenda with the Energy and Environment Commission.

Uh and and certainly the major difference between the two is the expenditure of of funds.

Yes, we absolutely uh encourage, as we showed earlier in a vote, the committees and commissions of the city of Newport to share their opinions with us.

And when the appropriate time comes, those opinions can be debated.

The appropriate time will be in the future if we debate the moratorium on future gas hookups, as the uh former commission that I mentioned recommends.

The appropriate time to debate this is tonight.

Tonight, the waterfront commission recommended to the Harbormaster who recommended to the administration that we spend the $25,000.

Again, Apple Staranges, major difference, and I'm saying that this $25,000 expenditure from the enterprise fund uh to tell the residents of planet Earth how great Newport is for regottas could be spent far more worthily on other necessary items.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chair.

Don't swing.

Um I'd like a little bit more detail as to the purpose of this study.

What is this going to tell us?

Is it going to just a little more information would be great?

Good evening, Steve Land, Newport Harbor Master.

So this study, the Waterfront Commission has been asking for for several years.

They are and we are really starting to take a management style of the moorings, how they're being used and what they're being used for.

One of the unique things, and Councillor Carlin is right.

Newport is the sailing capital of the world.

Everyone knows that.

But they'd like to start actually quantifying some information on how this major sporting event actually impacts New Porters, Newport businesses, tax base, all of that.

It's it is the start of, I think it's going to be many studies on the harbor that need to really quantify.

They did a study similar to this, it was about 30 years ago when they started the sale newports um, you know, information.

And um it was it was very, very eye-opening to what this harbor does provide to the city.

Um so I it it took a while to get the money into the budget, just like Councilor Carlin uh explained.

And um, it is $25,000.

We can use further stuff, but I do believe it is very worthwhile to actually perform the study.

So worthwhile that the uh Discover Newport, when they heard about it, they also chipped in $10,000 because they agreed the value of this this information.

Um it's gonna lead into other studies, I can guarantee.

Right now, this is a very specific, it's very quantifiable.

Uh our regottas, I don't know if they really brag about them, but they start in early June, one of the biggest ones, the reader race.

Uh, we're having uh I think there's up to 70 events just locally in Newport, and then all the ones in there against the Bay kind of bleed into Newport.

Uh we have all the tall ships coming through this year.

It's going to be a uh a very, very busy summer.

And if we need to get a jump on it, if we are gonna collect this information to be able to analyze it and give a report back to you and the city.

Mr.

Chairman.

Um I think that this is important because I think it I think residents don't really realize at times, or there's not enough transparency as to how tourism impacts their own lives and the tax rate and uh the there's so I think that this sort of of thing is a good way to show transparency of how tourism actually does affect them on a on a day-to-day basis.

There are aggravations with it, but there are benefits with it too.

And so the the harbor is like a whole other world, you know.

I it really is.

And uh I I want to know what is the economic impact of these regottas, what what how does it impact other businesses?

How does it so it's it's very important to know this information in order to make good decisions about the harbor?

So thank you, Mr.

Chair, Council Smith.

Um, has the chamber of commerce been sort of looped in to the need for this study?

Because I'm wondering if they have any information that they have done over the years regarding this.

Not that I'm aware of, no.

Okay, because uh I'm wondering if there's an opportunity for Discover Newport to partner with the chamber and potentially to partner with maybe Salvay or URI to conduct this study that maybe wouldn't cost the city 25,000, if that has been a consideration.

It it has not.

It's been at least three years they've been discussing this and talking about it, figuring out ways they can do it.

And uh, you know, $25,000 is not a big money for a study.

I mean, we've talked about that, you know, the traffic studies like that.

So that was a minimal that they got.

We we've met with different companies and kind of found out what's the minimal, and then to have an extra 10 put in by Discovery Newport was was incredibly valuable.

And oh Mr.

Chair, this money comes from fees from the harbor.

This does this is not taxpayer money.

It's everything that the enterprise fund provides is from use fees from the harbor, correct?

Mr.

Chairman, Council Carlin.

Thank you, Harbor Master Land.

Uh is the uh is Discover Newport in the business of promoting a strong healthy uh tourism economy for Newport County and beyond.

Yes.

Is okay, thank you.

Is discover Newport in the business of uh providing stormwater options that solidify or help uh city residents with regard to flooding and with regard to sewage discharge.

Uh let me go beyond that.

Is Discover Newport in the business of providing seawall protection?

Those two uh combined, please.

Are they in that business?

I don't believe so, no.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I would suggest if Discover Newport wishes to promote uh a very healthy tourism economy, including what regottas mean for Newport, and it's very important to the city overall as well.

Let them pay for uh the $35,000 cost and perhaps share it with the Chamber of Commerce as Councillor Smythe uh suggested, and let the city of Newport use our enterprise funds to provide things like stormwater protection, etc.

I urge a no vote on this, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair, the enterprise fund is not for stormwater um expense expenses and right.

I mean, that's not that's not what this fund is for.

It's for the harbor.

It's yeah, no, it's not for stormwater.

We don't we don't provide funds for the chairman.

But you had you had your time.

So uh yeah, I I just I just want to say that that we're mixing apples and oranges here with with funding.

So I I this is the these are fees related to that are uh fees related to the harbor that are collected, and that's what this is being spent on.

So I there it doesn't have anything to do with whatever money we need for infrastructure.

Council Napolitano.

I just think it's in I think it's important to know the import and the impact of the regards.

And right now we can't quantify it.

So it seems like a great idea and a great uh way to acknowledge what the impact in import is to the citizens of Newport.

Okay, uh all those in favor, raise your right hand.

All is opposed by it.

Okay, on to ordinances.

Motion to amend section 4.0801020.

I'm sorry, one two oh a C1 of the codified ordinances entitled property tax classification.

This is a second reading.

Second this uh has to do with uh removing the uh ability to um use a voter registration as right as the um as a way to prove residency.

Correct.

And again, based on the date change from the last meeting, that means both what was passed in the last meeting in terms of the window for application and the voter registration requirement will not take effect until next calendar year's window beginning on January 2nd.

Great, thank you.

And just to reiterate so going forward, uh beginning next year.

So the only accepted proof of residency will be a current Rhode Island driver's license or identification card issued by the Rhode Island Division of Motor Vehicles showing a residence address, which is the address of the property for which the applicant resident is seeking the owner-occupied residential rate, an active uh active duty military member may also show their required proof of residency by way of military orders, assign the applicant the duty applicant for duty at military installations and facilities in Newport Rhode Island area.

Post office box is not a legal address for this purpose, and we will be removing um as uh a registered voter in the city of Newport uh list maintained by a city canvassing authority.

Uh list maintained by the city canvassing authority.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye, seven.

Motion to motion to amend section five.12.040 of the court codified ordinances entitled Number of Licenses Permitted to Increase the Number of B T licenses from by one and reduce the number of BL licenses by one.

This is a second reading.

I move approved.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

Okay.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Second.

Motion to adjourn as council and convene as board of licensed commissioners.

Second.

Motion and second, any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to approve the consent calendar in its entirety.

Second.

Motion and second.

Any discussion.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion and second to adjourn.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.